Sagging Pants and the Constitution

[quote]synthesis wrote:
Why aren’t plumbers unions up in arms about this?[/quote]

Because crack IS illegal

[quote]synthesis wrote:
Why aren’t plumbers unions up in arms about this?[/quote]

Lets not forget about the refrigerator repair men.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m only saying one thing:

If you agree that the right to own an AK-47 is clearly protected by the Constitution you BETTER believe sagging pants are as well.

Help me out… tell me where I can find sagging pants in the bill of rights.[/quote]

First Amendment + Tinker

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m only saying one thing:

If you agree that the right to own an AK-47 is clearly protected by the Constitution you BETTER believe sagging pants are as well.

Help me out… tell me where I can find sagging pants in the bill of rights.

First Amendment + Tinker[/quote]

Tinker was about students in a public school using clothing (black armbands) as political speech.

This isn’t about a public school. This isn’t about clothing worn to make a political statement. Or am I missing something?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m only saying one thing:

If you agree that the right to own an AK-47 is clearly protected by the Constitution you BETTER believe sagging pants are as well.

Help me out… tell me where I can find sagging pants in the bill of rights.

First Amendment + Tinker

Tinker was about students in a public school using clothing (black armbands) as political speech.

This isn’t about a public school. This isn’t about clothing worn to make a political statement. Or am I missing something?[/quote]

You don’t miss much.
At all.
Ever.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

This isn’t about a public school. This isn’t about clothing worn to make a political statement. Or am I missing something?[/quote]

I don’t think you are.

There is an odd phenomenon among the Left and many libertarians that equates “I don’t like it” to “unconstitutional”. It’s puzzling.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
nephorm wrote:

This isn’t about a public school. This isn’t about clothing worn to make a political statement. Or am I missing something?

I don’t think you are.

There is an odd phenomenon among the Left and many libertarians that equates “I don’t like it” to “unconstitutional”. It’s puzzling.
[/quote]

I understand it. It makes total sense. Have you ever heard an old man rail “there’s gotta be a law against that!”

It’s the same sort of thing:

“There’s gotta be a law against that… law!”

There is a law of sorts, it’s called the constitution. Thus why things are “unconstitutional.” Interpretation of it isn’t so cut and dry but I don’t see what’s so puzzling about it.

[quote]synthesis wrote:
There is a law of sorts, it’s called the constitution. Thus why things are “unconstitutional.” Interpretation of it isn’t so cut and dry but I don’t see what’s so puzzling about it. [/quote]

Yes, I understand that… hence my joke.

But the point of the joke was that just as when some people see behavior they dislike, their indignation inspires in them a sincere confidence that others have felt equally indignant about the same behavior and prohibited it, so do others feel that any law that inspires their indignation must have been foreseen by the founders and thwarted through the Bill of Rights.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m only saying one thing:

If you agree that the right to own an AK-47 is clearly protected by the Constitution you BETTER believe sagging pants are as well.

Help me out… tell me where I can find sagging pants in the bill of rights.

First Amendment + Tinker

Tinker was about students in a public school using clothing (black armbands) as political speech.

This isn’t about a public school. This isn’t about clothing worn to make a political statement. Or am I missing something?[/quote]

So if I go to school sagging my pants in political protest of leather belts I’m scott-free?

[quote] Beowolf wrote:
So if I go to school sagging my pants in political protest of leather belts I’m scott-free?
[/quote]

Sigh.

Lucky for us they aren’t cracking dowm on short skirts and low cut tops.

[quote]streamline wrote:
Lucky for us they aren’t cracking dowm on short skirts and low cut tops.[/quote]

Amen to that.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So if I go to school sagging my pants in political protest of leather belts I’m scott-free?

Sigh.[/quote]

Explain how that doesn’t commute please? First amendment rights don’t stop at the school house door. I’m making a political statement. What’s the difference between a black armband and a leather belt (legally speaking, not morally, obviously)?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Explain how that doesn’t commute please? First amendment rights don’t stop at the school house door. I’m making a political statement. What’s the difference between a black armband and a leather belt (legally speaking, not morally, obviously)?[/quote]

A qualifying question - what behavior could never be a political statement by the lights of the individual engaging in the behavior?

By your idea, everything is or could be a political statement. A defendant wearing sunglasses and a black hoodie while in court? Protected - as political speech. Walking around nude on public streets? Protected - as political speech.

These are no less political than a leather belt - protected, Beowolf?

Just send all guys wearing sagging pants to Parris Island for a few months. The DIs and the sand fleas up their ass will cure 'em of the sagging pants.

Then, send the guys to Afghanistan…or Jersey. Basically the same thing.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
synthesis wrote:
There is a law of sorts, it’s called the constitution. Thus why things are “unconstitutional.” Interpretation of it isn’t so cut and dry but I don’t see what’s so puzzling about it.

Yes, I understand that… hence my joke.

But the point of the joke was that just as when some people see behavior they dislike, their indignation inspires in them a sincere confidence that others have felt equally indignant about the same behavior and prohibited it, so do others feel that any law that inspires their indignation must have been foreseen by the founders and thwarted through the Bill of Rights.[/quote]

It was half a reply to you and half a reply to thunderbolt.

Not to single neph out but the Bill of Rights is applicable today if you make it applicable. That’s what interpretation, debate and the judicial branch is for. The issue here is illegal search and seizure. Are they stopping girls and searching them because their thongs are showing? I doubt it, unless they plan on molesting them.

It’s like that concept of how a cop can pull you over when you’re driving if he wants to (failure to come to a complete stop, light on your license plate is out, etc). The reason may be total BS too. It’s an excuse to try and get you on a more serious charge. I know some people scream, “There’s nothing to worry about if you don’t break the law” but this is the American system. You’re going to have to get used to it some time in your life if you live here. You let some criminals go in exchange for upholding the basic rights that the founding fathers thought every citizen should have.

Seriously though, I don’t see crack whenever I see a dude busting a sag with his baggy pants. The occasional laborer without a belt on the other hand…

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m only saying one thing:

If you agree that the right to own an AK-47 is clearly protected by the Constitution you BETTER believe sagging pants are as well.

Help me out… tell me where I can find sagging pants in the bill of rights.[/quote]

Any individual rights that are not enumerated are implied. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution wasn’t meant to specify every right of the individual, it was to limit gov’t in stepping on individual and state’s rights.

Anything not specified as a power of Gov’t is not to be a power of gov’t. Of course, this only coveres the fed.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Explain how that doesn’t commute please? First amendment rights don’t stop at the school house door. I’m making a political statement. What’s the difference between a black armband and a leather belt (legally speaking, not morally, obviously)?

A qualifying question - what behavior could never be a political statement by the lights of the individual engaging in the behavior?

By your idea, everything is or could be a political statement. A defendant wearing sunglasses and a black hoodie while in court? Protected - as political speech. Walking around nude on public streets? Protected - as political speech.

These are no less political than a leather belt - protected, Beowolf?

[/quote]

Yep. They are all political speech.

And of course, like all the other amendments, we can limit that freedom when it becomes a danger to others. You can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre and you can’t wear a large ski jacket and mask to a large public gathering without being checked out.

Why the hell are you drawing the line at some arbitrary point, just because you think something is tacky? Sagging pants hurt no one and have no potential to hurt anyone any more than pants worn at the damn belly button.

Can I walk around naked as a political statement?